"SEP 08 87 14:39 HERBERT SMITH HK
18
f.
4
trial. Secondly, the speeches contain an exposition of the relevant law and practice which both binds us and points to our proper conclusion.
:
..
All their Lordships were agreed upon two
propositions namely:
{
i
(1) that when the injunction was originally
granted, the Plaintiff had an arguable case for a permanent injunction.
(2) that the Vice-Chancellor was right to
say:
"As in 1986, damages would be an ineffective and inappropriate remedy for the Attorney General. An injunction is the only thing that is any good to him."
What divided their Lordship was whether proposition (1) remained true on the facts, consequent upon the publication of the book in the United States. If, as the majority held, the propositions remained true it could simply be
demonstr
r
ed:-
•
(a) that refusal of an interim injunction
would deprive the Plaintiff of any effective remedy without a trial;
whereas
(b) its grant would postpone not defeat the
Defendants' right to publish matters
not in themselves novel
!
Lord Brandon summed up the position in this way:
"The choice lies between one course which may result in permanent and
irrevocable damage to the cause of the
P.2